It is perhaps surprising that it is only 3 withdrawals since we already "know" from published sources (which might be wrong!) that more than this (at least - the ICOMOS reports have stayed largely hidden from public view unlike IUCN which published theirs) have not been "passed" for inscription by the advisory body (AB). Namely these 5 - Dinosaur Coast, Le Corbusier, Schwetzingen, Hälsingland, Jajce. We have also heard that IUCN only Oked 2 (Wadden See, Dolomites) - which implies that Lena Pillars must also have received a thumbs down as the only other "Natural site"?
But perhaps some of these "Nos" were in fact recommendations for re/deferrals. In which case it is still to the benefit of the country to have them formally recorded as such at the WHC so they are given priority when bringing them back in a future year. It would seem that the only sense in "withdrawing" is if a formal rejection is going to be recorded and the country either
a. wishes to avoid the public "humiliation" of having been "shown" to have a very poor sense of what is "World Heritage" class, being unable to put togather a compelling set of documents or else of being incompetent in managing its sites!
b. Wanting to improve the dossier/case without the history of a rejection - I still can't get to the bottom of whether/to what extent it is true that a site once rejected can't be resubmitted. There are plenty of examples where this has happeend - albeit after a "decent period"! But this restriction is often quoted - does anyone know of chapter and verse in the rules on this one way or the other?